David Feeney's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Holden | Private Members' Business | House debates
I begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Wakefield, for bringing this very important motion before this parliament, and I am delighted to second it. Last week, the sadness about the final...
I begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Wakefield, for bringing this very important motion before this parliament, and I am delighted to second it. Last week, the sadness about the final destruction of this country's car industry reverberated throughout this chamber, throughout this parliament and, I might say, across the country. The closure of the Holden Australia plant in Elizabeth was really the final chapter in what has been an extinction-level event for thousands of Australian jobs, an entire industry being wiped out by this government. Over some nearly seven decades the car industry has employed, quite literally, generations of workers. It was a source of good-quality jobs for migrants and for working-class people. In my own electorate of Batman, where some two in five persons were born overseas, many residents now in their golden years remember working in those car factories, and they remember the good jobs and the opportunities that came with them. They came to this country with next to nothing but with a hope for a better life for themselves and for their children, and they found work in car manufacturing companies. They built cars for our grandparents and our parents, and they helped to build them for this nation. Their jobs were a source of both personal and national prosperity. They are often the neglected heroes of this nation's nation-building story. If only today they were able to have a government that backed them in. If only today they had a government that was prepared not only to acknowledge their contribution but to seize the opportunities the car industry could have looked forward to into the future. Victoria has been making cars for over seven decades, and now that, too, has come to an end. The reality is that all three brands that have a deep history in this country, that helped build this country, are now gone. Instead, the government made an active, a calculated and a conscious decision, Prime Minister after Prime Minister, Treasurer after Treasurer, to turn their backs on the car industry. It was almost with cavalier disregard that they allowed this industry to collapse on their watch. It was a game of brinksmanship for which they were not qualified. It was a game of brinksmanship which saw them lost, perhaps for momentary embarrassment at the next polo game they attended, but to the lasting destruction of this industry and for this country, and they turned their backs not just on these workers and their families but on this country as a whole. In question time last Thursday, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer bragged about the coalition's achievement of jobs growth, and they did that in the very same week where 1,000 workers at Holden lost their jobs. It just shows how remarkably out of touch this government is. When faced with a jobs tragedy, we find ourselves asking again and again: 'Well, how did we get here? How did this tragedy come about? How is it that this government killed the car industry?' In 2013, the then Labor government went to that election with a plan. Under the new car plan, Labor promised a further $1.5 billion in support for the car industry, to be given over the period 2015 to 2020. The plan would deliver some $5.4 billion in support to the Australian automotive manufacturing industry over the period from 2008 to 2020, the bulk of these funds flowing to the industry through the Automotive Transformation Scheme. The then Labor government believed that this was a plan that would help the automotive manufacturing industry in this country not just to survive but to prosper, remembering that at that moment in time Australia was just one of 13 nations in the world that had the people, the skills, and the capital to build cars from end to end. China, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, India, the UK, US, South Korea, Russia and Malaysia—this was a club that the Abbott and Turnbull governments were very, very relaxed about Australia departing. This was a club, of course, where in all 13 of those nations the car industry was supported by subsidies or by tariffs. But, nonetheless, this was a club that this government cared nothing about Australia leaving. The election of the Abbott government turned out to be the nail in the coffin of an industry that still had a lot of life left to give to this country. Speaking at the launch of the new four-cylinder Holden Cruze in 2011, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard spoke of the occasion when Prime Minister Chifley launched the first Holden, in the 1950s. He wasn't just launching a car, the Prime Minister said, he was building a nation. We know that this isn't a government that minds a good boondoggle—a $1 billion subsidy to Adani is justified in their world view—and we know that this isn't a government that is opposed to the subsidies on the grounds of markets, because Direct Action is, of course, a plan to destroy—(Time expired)
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
This amendment bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, was first flagged in last year's budget. It was the political centrepiece of the Turnbull government's...
This amendment bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, was first flagged in last year's budget. It was the political centrepiece of the Turnbull government's 2016-17 budget. The fact that we've only got to commence the parliamentary debate concerning these bills in mid-September of 2017 speaks to the chasm that exists between what the Turnbull government says are its political priorities and what its deeds reveal its priorities to actually be. Labor has made plain that we will not support the Turnbull government's $65 billion tax cut for business. It is a tax cut that the Australian budget and the country cannot afford. It is in ever-deepening deficit under this conservative government, with a gross debt that has hit the $500 billion mark in June and is still growing. It is a record debt that has nearly doubled from the $280 billion that existed when the coalition took office in 2013. It is a matter of fact that, when the coalition took office, gross debt per person was $12,076. Today, after nearly five years of coalition economic stewardship, that number has grown to around $20,025 per person. This is a government Australia cannot afford, and this government is proposing a tax cut that Australia cannot afford. The Turnbull government's plans for growth only meant growth of the debt. The government's budget papers expect gross debt to hit $725 billion in 2027-28, with no peak in sight. It is the coalition that turned out to be the debt and deficit disaster for our country. Labor has always opposed this tax cut because it represents a significant structural deterioration to the budget over the medium term and it represents a deterioration at precisely the wrong moment for the Australian public debt. This amendment bill represents a hit to the budget that shows the rank hypocrisy of a government which lectures the Australian people about the need for budget repair on the one hand and yet deliberately deepens the debt on the other. Remember the glory days of 2013-14, when the then Prime Minister and the then Treasurer spoke of the nation's debt and deficit disaster? We don't hear that rhetoric these days. Why? Because the successive Abbott and Turnbull coalition governments have dramatically expanded Australia's national debt and have abandoned even the pretext of reining in public sector spending and gross debt. On this government's watch, the deficit has blown out and debt has crashed past the half a trillion dollar mark. The Turnbull government doesn't speak of debt and deficit anymore. Policy failure has rendered that catchphrase an embarrassment to the coalition. In 2016, the Prime Minister found a new catchphrase: jobs and growth. Like its predecessor, this phrase, too, is on its way to embarrassing oblivion in the annals of conservative marketing failures. Today, Australia's gross domestic product growth is less than two per cent. That is lower than the GDP growth of New Zealand, the United States and Canada. That is less than the OECD average. The very low growth rates experienced by Australia are a testament to the fact that, when this government focuses on a policy priority, one can be assured of failure. We also get a sense of the scale of the budget hit earlier this year when the farcical scenes of question time are recalled. Just after the last budget, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister, 'What was the full cost of the company tax rates proposed by this government?' The answer given to the Leader of the Opposition's question included three figures: $24 billion, then $26 billion and then $50 billion. Such was the abject confusion that the Leader of the Opposition, ever the gentleman, asked the question for a second time. When asked again to confirm the projected cost of the business tax cuts, the Prime Minister flicked to Scott Morrison—in a rather comedic display—and the Treasurer said, '$36.5 billion.' Later, in a new answer to the same question, the government finally coughed up the truth. The Treasurer revealed that this was a policy with a price tag of $65.4 billion. In a single parliamentary question time, the coalition's company tax cuts had become more expensive by over $15 billion. This is the kind of shoddy, ad hoc leadership and shoddy, ad hoc management of this country's budget that has seen our deficit and debt position so dramatically deteriorate. Ever since the government revealed its plan for business tax cuts, Labor has been clear that this was a plan that included not only a very large price tag but extremely minimal economic benefits to the broader economy. Let's have a quick reminder of what it is that this $65 billion cost to the budget produces for the Australian economy. By the government's own boastful measure, this is a policy that will produce a mere one per cent of economic growth over 20 years, only $2 a day increase in wages in 20 years time and wages growth at record lows of 1.9 per cent. What a miserable harvest for more than $65 billion. Australian families are facing a nasty cocktail of rising costs, rising electricity prices, stalling wages growth and record high unemployment and underemployment. This is a government that has nothing to offer them. Labor has long-held concerns about low wages growth. Without a doubt, the dwindling bargaining power of workers and their representatives has played a central role in the stagnant wages growth and rising inequality that now beset this country—also, at a time when the government has supported penalty rate cuts, operative from 1 July this year, and seeks to raise income taxes on all taxpayers with incomes above $21,000. We now live in an Australia where a worker on $55,000 a year will pay an additional $275 a year and someone on $80,000 only an extra $400 a year. It goes to this government's approach and their misguided priorities that their answer for flat wages growth is a cut to pay and higher income taxes. How entirely unpersuasive is it when we see this country's Treasurer bemoan low wages growth while, at the same time, he speedily creates the conditions for that very same low wages growth! We hear those who support this proposed tax cut for business say it is needed to drive investment, but it was only a few years ago that we had the biggest investment boom Australia has ever seen, and that was accomplished with a headline corporate tax rate of 30 per cent. Budgets are all about priorities and this government, quite simply, has the wrong priorities. Under this government, big businesses get tax cuts, high-income earners get a tax cut, workers earning above $21,000 get increased taxes and penalty rates have been cut. Now, all of this, you thought, might have been enough to end support for this absurd policy, but it does not stop there. This government has failed on economic leadership and there's one person who is emblematic of this failure—that is, the Treasurer. The Treasurer is incompetent and his incapacity to do his day job is the most blindingly obvious example of this government's failure in economic policy. This is not a sudden revelation; this is a pattern of incompetence and failure that underlines how badly this government is performing. Remember the heady days at the end of 2015 when Morrison was first appointed Treasurer. At that moment in time, he was believed to be formidable and he was accepted as being a significant political actor. How times have changed. He has literally shrunk in the job. Since early 2016, we have seen him with his GST reforms stillborn, we have seen him proposing and then abandoning tax powers being given back to the states, and we have watched him collapse and faint at various moments across this country's national political conversation. He has shrunk from becoming a person of substance, a politician that was regarded by Labor as formidable, to the shrinking violet and ineffective and inarticulate spokesperson that he has become today. On his watch, this nonsensical $65 billion tax cut has been proposed, and on his watch he has manifestly failed to make out the reasons for supporting it. Treasurer Morrison was supposed to be the chief spear carrier for this government but, as it turns out, he can barely wield a water pistol. Unlike this government and unlike this government's Treasurer, Labor has it priorities—priorities that will ensure we deal with inequality in this country. That means Labor is committed to funding our schools. This means proper investment in Australian infrastructure and it means a fairer tax system. A Labor government would further deal with superannuation tax concessions, something that we announced late last year and something that this government has since tried to describe as a secret superannuation tax. Labor have promised that we will level the playing field for first home buyers through reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax—taking on the challenge of housing affordability. Labor have announced that we will cap the deductions that people can obtain for managing their tax affairs to $3,000 per person. Announced recently, our plan to impose a minimum 30 per cent tax on discretionary trusts and to deal with the issue of income splitting means dealing with some fundamental issues that have been in the too-hard basket for far too long. We now live in a topsy-turvy world where, from opposition, Labor has more aggressively promoted reform and more effectively articulated the need to manage the economic affairs of this country, while we have a government that, while in office, has managed to triple the deficit, expand the debt from $280 billion to more than $500 billion, and, of course, couldn't argue its way out of a wet paper bag. This is a government that, frankly, is paralysed—paralysed by its incompetence and paralysed by its divisions. When it comes down to it, this is a government with simply the wrong priorities—a government that is determined to reduce the tax on businesses, and big businesses in particular, while at the same time increasing tax on working Australians. We have made the point that, in technical terms, what is being proposed by this government is an unfunded corporate tax cut—because that is what it is. There is no funding to pay for this. This is a tax cut for business that is funded by future debt. This is what, for instance, former Treasurer and former Prime Minister Paul Keating has pointed out: that it is an unfunded corporate tax cut, quite different to what he did when he was Treasurer, which was to broaden the base, go after loopholes and deal with inequities within the tax system. Paul Keating was paying for his policies. This Treasurer had a thought and said, 'Well, the politics of this ramshackle show need rescuing; I will produce a $65 billion tax cut for business.' But he is unable to fund it, unable to justify it and unable to speak to the effects it will have in our economy. But, in another sense, this government's $65 billion tax cut is funded: it is funded by the tax increases that this government has delivered for working Australians. We know that the tax burden on PAYG taxpayers will increase in coming years, and it will increase because this government is increasing the tax rate in part through increasing the Medicare levy. The Parliamentary Budget Office projects that the average tax rate on personal income will rise from 22.7 per cent in 2016-17 to 25.9 per cent in 2027-28. Under this government, the tax burden grows. From 2023-24 to 2027-28, when the company tax rate is meant to decrease to 25 per cent for all companies, personal income taxes rise by 0.2 percentage points of GDP while company taxes decrease by 0.3 percentage points. It is clear that low- and middle-income Australians are paying for the government's $65 billion handout to big business, and they are paying it for it in the form of rising personal income taxes. This was confirmed by the PBO earlier this month, with the PBO saying that, in addition to the effect of nominal income growth, average tax rates are expected to decrease due to policy changes—most notably, the policy decision to increase the Medicare levy from 2019-20. We have also seen reports in the last weeks and months that there is confusion about which companies are eligible for this government's excessive tax cuts and the contrast between active trading businesses versus companies holding passive investments—a contrast that simply led this government into further confusion. You would have thought that, this being the centrepiece economic policy of this government, its major political survival line, the government may have had these details thought through and able to be explained. But, no, as has been shown time and time again, this is not a government that should be overestimated. This is another example of its incompetence, and its poor politics married to lousy policy.
Azerbaijan | Statements by Members | House debates
In recent weeks leaked data has revealed that Azerbaijan's ruling elite operated a secret $2.9 billion scheme to launder money and pay prominent Europeans, including journalists and politicians....
In recent weeks leaked data has revealed that Azerbaijan's ruling elite operated a secret $2.9 billion scheme to launder money and pay prominent Europeans, including journalists and politicians. This unfolding scandal shows that the Azerbaijani leadership, already accused by Amnesty International and other NGOs of serial human rights abuses, systemic corruptions and rigging elections, made more than 16,000 covert payments from 2012 to 2014 through a network of opaque British companies. Investigations led by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project have revealed that these illicit payments, using reputable banks and secret companies, aimed to buy political influence and launder Azerbaijan's international image. Just this week, the ASIO annual report warned that foreign governments have been attempting to shape the opinions of the public and the media in covert influence operations. New South Wales Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells visited Azerbaijan recently. Upon her return she stated on the public record, 'Australia is a forthright supporter of Azerbaijan's sovereignty and territorial integrity and strongly supports Azerbaijan's position on Nagorno-Karabakh.' This bold statement rewrites Australian foreign policy and disregards Australia's longstanding support of the OSCE Minsk Group peace efforts for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based on the principles of equal rights and the self-determination of people. I urge the senator to not give in to caviar diplomacy. (Time expired)
Victoria: Regional Development Australia | Private Members' Business | House debates
I begin by thanking my colleagues the members for Scullin and McEwen for bringing this motion and these important sentiments to the attention of the House. This important motion concerns the...
I begin by thanking my colleagues the members for Scullin and McEwen for bringing this motion and these important sentiments to the attention of the House. This important motion concerns the Northern Melbourne Regional Development Australia committee. Melbourne is booming faster than ever. It is now one of the 10 fastest-growing large cities in the developed world. It is growing quicker than Mexico City and New York. In the past decade declining affordability of inner-city living and the evolution from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge economy have driven massive growth and great change in Melbourne's north. We are now facing unprecedented population growth. Recent data has shown that it will become home to more than 300,000 additional persons by 2031. This means that the northern suburbs of Melbourne will soon be the size of Adelaide. The renowned livability which northern Melbourne has always been proud of—safe, multicultural, cosmopolitan and on the doorstep of the Melbourne CBD—is at risk of being replaced by a decreasing quality of life and productivity. Population growth has placed severe pressure on already strained infrastructure, with services and new infrastructure not keeping up with the demands of new residents. We see this on our roads with traffic congestion and at our train stations. Population growth, combined with a shift in structural change, and the growth of unemployment and underemployment have become major economic challenges in our parts of Melbourne. Recent research shows that in Melbourne's north there are some of the highest localised unemployment figures in the state, and we're well above the Victorian and national averages. In particular, the level of youth unemployment is pronounced and unacceptable. The unemployment rates of the 15-to-24-year-old cohort in the cities of Hume, Whittlesea and Darebin are three to five percentage points higher than that found in inner Melbourne. All of the City of Darebin and parts of the City of Whittlesea are in my electorate. Northern Melbourne is a highly diverse region, with residents coming from more than 160 different countries and over 140 different languages being spoken at home. We all know how profound the impact is from long-term unemployment and disengagement from work and learning, and the impacts that can have on young people. In a region as diverse as northern Melbourne, a job is of significant importance, as it is everywhere, to a community's cohesiveness. Melbourne is burgeoning, and northern Melbourne is bearing the brunt of growth and change. This is why I wholeheartedly welcomed the conception of RDA Northern Melbourne. Funded by the Regional Development Australia program, RDA Northern Melbourne was set up to bring together local leaders, businesses, stakeholders and state, local and federal governments to support economic development in our local community and with programs and ideas tailored to the strengths and compensating for the weaknesses of our local community. It has since carried out many initiatives, tackling issues including youth unemployment and infrastructure. I will name just a few. The Food and Beverage Growth Plan—Melbourne's North, released in 2014, aimed at creating 10,000 new jobs over 10 years. Northern JobReach has assisted over 550 jobseekers and exceeded the targets set by placing 111 people in jobs with local manufacturers. Northern Horizons, a 50-year infrastructure strategy, identified local infrastructure priorities, and in 2016 an updated version was published to ensure that the priorities identified in that document remain a true representation of the needs of our region. By engaging a variety of stakeholders and partners, both public and private, RDA Northern Melbourne was able to mobilise the community behind strategic and targeted responses to issues that affect our communities. This is why this government's decision to shut down RDA Northern Melbourne, following a review into Regional Development Australia, came as a surprise and an unwelcome shock. But the government's action to downplay Victoria's needs should not, perhaps, surprise us at all. This government has infamously been short-changing Victoria for as long as it's been in power. We know that in the most recent federal budget Victoria received less than eight per cent of federal infrastructure funding despite having a quarter of this nation's population. It is precisely under such unfavourable circumstances that the importance of retaining RDA Northern Melbourne must not be underestimated. I call on the government to look seriously at northern Melbourne's infrastructure, its needs and its urgent requirements for growth and to reinstate RDA Northern Melbourne. I, along with my Labor colleagues, know that the RDA committee continues to provide tailored solutions for our community, and we're going to keep needing them. We deserve a share in our capital city's growth and prosperity. RDA Northern Melbourne has a track record of delivering results that benefit our region, and we continue to need it.
Australia-India Relationship | Constituency Statements | House debates
With the cricket season creeping upon us here in Australia, tens of millions of cricket fans around the world will have their eyes once again on the cricket teams and sporting prowess found in...
With the cricket season creeping upon us here in Australia, tens of millions of cricket fans around the world will have their eyes once again on the cricket teams and sporting prowess found in the Indian subcontinent. With that region's emerging new economic and security power, and Australia's strategy of pivoting its trade and defence interests towards the Indo-Pacific, our cricket friends or foes in the subcontinent region are now our important strategic partners—particularly India. India, a country with whom Australia has enjoyed diplomatic relations for over 70 years and a country with whom we fought side by side at Gallipoli, is, quite properly, at the forefront of our thinking on international and regional strategic partners. Australia and India complement each other economically. Australia produces goods and services that India wants—energy, education related travel, food and precious metals—and we are engaged in a comprehensive regional economic partnership. We have the Australia-India CEO Forum and Australia Business Week in India. The Australia-India Strategic Research Fund has supported some 300 joint projects since 2007. We of course have a nuclear cooperation agreement and we share an ocean that is called 'Indian'. Governments can and should sign agreements and memoranda of understanding and should host dialogues, forums and leadership summits. But it is the people-to-people links that make these relationships deep, sincere and lasting. In my own electorate of Batman we have a strong subcontinental community, with the majority of them being followers of the Hindu faith. They are engineers, lawyers, business owners and university professors. They are active in our community. They of course contribute enormously to our society. In recent weeks they have reached out to my office by phone, in letters and on social media because their religious sentiments were deeply hurt by Meat and Livestock Australia's latest lamb ad campaign. In a video advertisement, Lord Ganesh, the Hindu god of learning and wisdom, is found eating meat and toasting lamb. Lord Ganesh is a vegetarian. To the people of Hindu faith, vegetarianism is more than a dietary preference. It is a manifestation of the core Hindu belief of nonviolence, meat consumption prohibition and not killing living beings for food. This ad has been carelessly and callously insulting to the religious beliefs of some 440,000 people in Australia and, of course, many millions overseas. It was crass, it lacked common sense and it was not asserting political free speech; it was simply a very poorly executed ad and it deserves to be condemned.
Fitzgerald, Ms Sue | Statements by Members | House debates
It is impossible to exaggerate how invaluable those who dedicate their lives to the care, education, growth and joy of our youngest children are to our community. My local community of Fairfield...
It is impossible to exaggerate how invaluable those who dedicate their lives to the care, education, growth and joy of our youngest children are to our community. My local community of Fairfield has been blessed over many years with one such individual, who has now announced her plan to retire. Known to most people as Miss Sue, Ms Sue Fitzgerald, the director of Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten in my electorate, is planning to hang up her hat at the end of this year. During her 30 years of service, Miss Sue has seen approximately 1,500 children enter her doors, first as the director of the Wonthaggi Kindergarten for two years before joining the Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten in 1988. I had the honour of visiting Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten earlier this year, and during my visit Miss Sue was generous enough to share her expertise and her views on a range of issues with me—issues ranging from unsafe pedestrian crossings near her kinder to the long waiting lists for child health services, and from the challenges the kinder faces in implementing the national quality framework to the need for securing ongoing funding for early childcare centres. Every issue Miss Sue raised comes from her three decades of experience as a frontline childhood educator. It goes without saying that Miss Sue cares a lot about children, but she has the interests of her staff and all early childcare workers at heart too. During my visit I was advised by Miss Sue that, as a result of the fragmentation of kindergarten management in Victoria, it has become significantly difficult for early childcare workers to access their workplace entitlements. Miss Sue believes it is simply unfair that an individual who has worked for three different kindergartens across the management spectrum would need to pursue each employer to access entitlements such as long service leave. There should be portability for those entitlements. In the case of smaller kindergartens, Miss Sue informs me, a former employee may find themselves in a situation where an individual employer simply does not have the funds to pay them out. I suspect that, on the cusp of her retirement, Miss Sue wanted to do as much as possible to make Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten a better place for the children and a better place for the educators. Here is an early childhood educator who is fully embracing not only the joy but also the challenges of her work. As the father of a three-year-old boy, I believe I can say on behalf of all parents that we remain eternally grateful to those who love and care for our children at times when we're unable to do so. This Sunday afternoon Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten will hold an event to commemorate, reflect on and acknowledge Miss Sue for her tremendous contribution to her kindergarten and her local community. This is an opportunity to show the affection our community feel for both Miss Sue and the centre she has run for nearly 30 years. I join the Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten and the Fairfield community in thanking Miss Sue and wishing her all the best.
Elections | Constituency Statements | House debates
For far too long, conservatives have suggested that Australia's young people simply aren't politically engaged, that they are apathetic and that they don't care about politics. We're told that...
For far too long, conservatives have suggested that Australia's young people simply aren't politically engaged, that they are apathetic and that they don't care about politics. We're told that they can't set a stamp and they don't know how to post a letter. This suggestion was reinforced by the fact that around 400,000 of Australia's 18- to 25-year-olds weren't enrolled to vote at the 2013 election. And around 130,000, or half of all 18-year-olds, were not enrolled to vote at the last election in 2016. This means that they couldn't have had their say even if they'd wanted to. Two weeks ago, I spoke at Northcote High School, a prominent school in my electorate, about the importance of political participation. I spoke to 16- and 17-year-old high-school students, who are on the cusp of adulthood and on the cusp of being entitled to vote. Many of them were frustrated with the democratic process, but I discovered that they were very interested in enrolling and in shaping the democracy and society in which they live. Here I must pay tribute to the coalition, because the coalition are great mobilisers of our young. The coalition's policies have brought young people into the enrolment in unprecedented numbers. The coalition, in recent days, have proven to be a more powerful volunteer mobilisation organisation for Labor than even some of our own efforts. From the numerous conversations I have had with youth leaders over the last few years, I know that the conservative government's attacks on their rights, their ability to go to university, their penalty rates and their work, or simply its ignoring of climate change, are regarded as the biggest threat to their generation and have played a remarkable role in bringing them on to the electoral roll in unprecedented numbers. Instead of giving in to a feeling of powerlessness, young Australians are fighting back. They are fighting back in a traditional and old-fashioned way: they are enrolling and getting ready to vote. They are getting ready to vote for a change of government. The result of the upcoming postal survey on marriage equality will be shaped by young Australians. We know that an extra 90,000 of them have added their names to the electoral roll, a remarkable 90,000 from a younger generation who have the potential not only to choose a future government but to make policy right now. Participating in the democratic process is their way of translating their ideas and values into outcomes. They are enrolling to support marriage equality. They are enrolling because they want to vote yes. Tribute has to be paid to Malcolm Turnbull for his capacity to mobilise these extra tens of thousands onto the roll to make sure there is a change of government.
Asylum Seekers | Statements by Members | House debates
A week has gone since the government's plan was revealed to cease almost immediately all income support for asylum seekers transferred to Australia for medical reasons. These asylum seekers will...
A week has gone since the government's plan was revealed to cease almost immediately all income support for asylum seekers transferred to Australia for medical reasons. These asylum seekers will be given three weeks before being evicted from government-supported accommodation, essentially coercing them back into offshore detention centres. Over the past week my office has been flooded with calls and letters from our local community voicing their frustration and anger at the government's latest attempt to rob refugees of their rights and legal choices. I echo their sentiments. These asylum seekers are vulnerable people. They may be traumatised by a violent past, they may have been through severe medical challenges and they may have virtually no financial support. Now the government is cutting off their income support and giving them an eviction notice. Making these people deliberately destitute is not an act of toughness. Making these people deliberately homeless is not an act of strong leadership. It is an act of cruelty, and it is a cynical political ploy seeking a distraction from the chaos this government inflicted upon itself time and again. It is definitely not an act of strong leadership. Strong leadership would be to join with Labor in bringing an end to indefinite detention through third-party resettlement, not to punish people for needing medical care. Strong leadership would be to follow the recent recommendation of the Senate and publicly confirm these asylum seekers' eligibility to apply to participate in the US refugee resettlement arrangement, not to deny them the opportunity to apply. I will not support the removal of up to 400 refugees transferred to Australia for medical reasons.
Turnbull Government | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
I'm very pleased to speak to this matter of public importance—indeed, I might say, this matter of grave importance—because these are dark and dangerous times. For over 100 years,...
I'm very pleased to speak to this matter of public importance—indeed, I might say, this matter of grave importance—because these are dark and dangerous times. For over 100 years, Australians have believed that New Zealand was a friend, a neighbour, a place that shared our values and a country with whom we would face the world together—our Anzac brothers and sisters. Indeed, in our Constitution there is a standing invitation for New Zealand to join the Commonwealth of Australia. In this friendship, of course, Australians have often lightheartedly joked about our relationship with New Zealand. Some of you may recall The Gruen Transfer and its entertaining joke about New Zealand is 100 per cent for the taking. As it's turned out, how complacent was that? That's because we now know, and this week it's been revealed, that, in fact, across the ditch lies a foreign power—not just a foreign power but a malevolent power that seems to have cast its avaricious eye upon Australia! This transformation in our foreign policy has been revealed by a few brave patriots who I think should be singled out for comment for their courage and for their imagination. The first out of the blocks with this remarkable threat to this country was the Leader of the House—'the fixer'—who is a politician known well throughout this parliament as a conviction politician. The other, of course, was the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is that foreign policy colossus and paragon of loyalty—loyalty to leader, loyalty to party and loyalty to nation. Of course, what these remarkable patriots have done is they have flung down the gauntlet to this foreign power. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will not be distracted by North Korea and its development of ICBMs. This Minister for Foreign Affairs will not be distracted by the issues confronting President Trump, the UN or anyone else. This Minister for Foreign Affairs will turn her gaze, her 'eye of Mordor', on to New Zealand. Christopher Pyne said: How many other foreign governments or foreign political parties in other countries has the Labor Party been colluding with to try and undermine the sovereignty of the Australian Government? Has he— the Leader of the Opposition— been talking to the people in Indonesia; or China, the Chinese Communist Party potentially; or Japan; or the Labor Party in the UK? This brave patriot comprehended the possible scale of what we were dealing with! The foreign minister was not to be outdone. She understands the power of the Labor Party. She said the Australian Labor Party set up the New Zealand government. She said: Should there be a change of government, I would find it very hard to build trust with those involved in allegations designed to undermine the government of Australia. In those remarks, she not only laid down a red line for Australia; she decisively intervened in New Zealand's own elections. This act of genius meant she not only defended our interests but also cast our hegemonic ambitions across the ditch. So it is that we are accustomed to confronting a government that is swift and decisive, that dominates the political conversation in this country, that helps us defend this country from a hidden menace, and thus now, behind closed doors, is taking decisive action. There's been talk of there being over one million infiltrators from this foreign power in Australia. There has been talk of this foreign power establishing cells in this country for over a century. Even as I speak, Defence under 'the fixer' must be constructing a new defence posture—forces moving to the ditch. This colossus of a foreign minister must now be engaging the United Nations in contemplating sanctions. This has not been satire; this has been the coalition's key-lines document. Over the course of this week, this fantastical picture is what they tried to conjure. This is what passes for political strategy in the government. It is a remarkable thing. It's not simply a laughing matter and it's not simply a laughable thing; it's a government that, in a desperate moment, looking for advantage—although finding comedy—threw our bilateral relationship with New Zealand overboard. For a moment's advantage, the foreign minister abandoned her responsibility as a foreign minister to protect that most important relationship, and we on this side are not surprised. (Time expired)
Broadband | Constituency Statements | House debates
The Minister for Communications, the current Prime Minister, promised all Australians that they would have access to download speeds of between 25 and 100 megabits per second by the end of 2016....
The Minister for Communications, the current Prime Minister, promised all Australians that they would have access to download speeds of between 25 and 100 megabits per second by the end of 2016. An opposition member: When? The end of 2016. An opposition member: Wow! An opposition member: How's that going? Sadly, the Prime Minister's outdated infrastructure model has resulted in the collapse of this lofty ideal. As the NBN rollout is using tired copper technology, it continues to be struck with delays, and examples abound of failed availability and dismal speeds. Adding to consumer frustration is the lesser known difficulty of gaining ADSL access while waiting and waiting and waiting for the NBN. Remarkably, in my electorate of Batman, residents of Reservoir, a suburb a mere 13 kilometres from Melbourne's CBD, have had to play pot luck with ADSL access. Reservoir, the largest suburb in Melbourne, now finds itself unable to establish ADSL connections on demand. With the combined predicted NBN connection in early 2018 and the suburb's growth, constituents now have been left without any connection as they wait for an ADSL port to become available. Who would believe that people moving to a suburb like Reservoir in the city of Melbourne, a global city, would be told: 'Sorry, there are no ports available. You will not have internet access'? What is happening here is that, while Telstra, on the one hand, is uninterested in investing in expanding capacity in a suburb that is supposed to have the NBN by early 2018, families moving into the suburb of Reservoir are told they will have to wait for a family to leave before they can get access to a port—so, one in, one out. For families that rely on the internet—and, as we know, that is an ever-growing proportion of our people, and the Prime Minister used to boast this was part of the economy that he cherished—this can be catastrophic. Families, who rely on the internet for income and for assisting with education of their school-aged children, small businesses, innovators and part-time consultants—all of these people—have been devastated by the failure of this government to live up to its rhetoric. While Telstra says it's working towards increasing the number of ADSL ports and NBN says it will be there by 2018, the people of Reservoir are left without choices. However, for those who are connected, the incoherence of the service they receive is staggering. Another distressed constituent, Mrs Pozzi, who is 83 years of age and living in Northcote, was alarmed when she was contacted by NBN and told the internet was coming and it would cost her $200 a year. She was most upset that she would have to pay this when she didn't want the internet and doesn't own a computer. In the northern part of my electorate, they can't get internet access and, in the southern half of my electorate, they are conscripted to it.
Batman Electorate: Preston Market | Adjournment | House debates
Over a year ago, at a public meeting in Preston attended by several hundred locals, including Robin Scott, the MP for Preston, and me, a community group was formed, named Save Our Preston Market....
Over a year ago, at a public meeting in Preston attended by several hundred locals, including Robin Scott, the MP for Preston, and me, a community group was formed, named Save Our Preston Market. This community has since worked assiduously to bring attention and support to a simple but very important goal—to preserve the much-loved character of our market and prevent it from becoming yet another bland, featureless suburban shopping mall. The campaign to save the character of Preston Market is one that I have proudly spoken about in this place and that I proudly support, as someone who loves to spend time there with my wife and son. At the outset of the Save Our Preston Market campaign, I believed that success would be reasonably straightforward. The group articulated a simple and widely supported set of goals. It was supported by me, the local state MP and the relevant planning authority, the Greens party dominated council, which was also eager to offer its support—or so it seemed. Darebin council was in a powerful position to extract key concessions in exchange for planning approvals and investment certainty. Those concessions concerned undertakings about meaningful community consultation, reasonable height limits on any development, the provision of car parking, providing a masterplan so that the community would understand the future vision for the market and preserving the character and authenticity of the market spaces themselves. But the Greens on Darebin council proved unwilling to use this moment of enormous leverage to the benefit of our community. Instead, the Greens party were obsessed with only one objective: how to weaponise the Save Our Preston Market cause for their own partisan purposes. In pursuing that objective, the fate of the market was apparently expendable. Rather than deploy their powers as the planning authority, the Darebin council simply refused all relevant planning applications. This had the effect of sending the developers off to appeal the decision at VCAT, taking Darebin council out of the position of actually having to negotiate or play a leadership role. The Greens-dominated Darebin council then devoted its energies to calling upon the Victorian government to call the project in, to do what they refused to do and save Preston Market. Instead, the Greens party councillors, having liberated themselves from any responsibility for the future of the market, returned to their political comfort zone—sloganeering, attending rallies and attacking Labor. The sheer cynicism and hypocrisy of the Greens in this matter became manifest on 22 June when they signed an agreement with the developers. The Greens rely on the fact that the agreement is protected by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act of 1988 to evade scrutiny and avoid transparency. But, today, I seek leave to tender a copy of that agreement. Leave granted. I thank the House. This is a document of an agreement made between the developers and the Greens-dominated council, and it's a document that can explain the chasm that exists between the Greens' words and the Greens' deeds. This agreement is an instrument of surrender and a betrayal of the Save Our Preston Market cause. It might have been better rendered on a white flag. The Greens party capitulated and colluded at every point. They have capitulated on parking, they have capitulated on the request to require a master plan and, most appallingly, they have capitulated on building heights. We now find ourselves in the absurd situation where the Preston Market redevelopment will be battled out at VCAT with the council and the developers on the same side. The truth is that the Greens have again and again shown themselves to be more interested in talking about values than acting on them. They are more interested in virulent anti-Labor-Party politics than progress. This Greens deal is a grave betrayal of our community. Fortunately for the market, Victorian Labor did act. In July, the Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, and the MP for Preston, Robin Scott, intervened to impose strict height controls to prevent overdevelopment of market buildings. In announcing a forthcoming review of planning controls in a proposed masterplan, Richard Wynne said he would safeguard the iconic market from inappropriate development. While the Greens councillors wash their hands of responsibility, Labor has acted in the interests of the community. The Greens should now reflect on how they have bungled this moment, on how they have let our community down, all in the pursuit of politics and seeking to transform a broad based community campaign supported by all of us into their own partisan plaything. Shame!
In question time yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister stated that I have a family trust. That is incorrect. I do not have a family trust.
I wish to make a personal explanation.
Aged Care | Private Members' Business | House debates
I begin by thanking the member for Lalor for putting forward this motion on retirement villages. In June, Australia was shocked by revelations on the Four Corners program concerning the...
I begin by thanking the member for Lalor for putting forward this motion on retirement villages. In June, Australia was shocked by revelations on the Four Corners program concerning the mistreatment of residents in retirement villages. The retirement village that particularly featured in that program, Veronica Gardens, is located in my electorate of Batman. The mistreatment of residents there has been deeply upsetting to them and has appalled the broader community, and we cannot let this continue. One of the most horrifying cases is that of Gwyneth Jones, who was forcibly admitted to psychiatric care after repeated run-ins with management at Veronica Gardens. Freedom of information documents show a plan to have her evicted that pre-dates her admission to the hospital. It was only with the assistance of disability advocates that she was able to stop the eviction and receive an apology from the company. It is utterly unacceptable that Gwyneth has had to put her physical and mental wellbeing at stake in pursuing fair treatment from the management body of her own retirement village. Immediately following the Four Corners program, I had a meeting with residents at Veronica Gardens, and I thanked the residents there for speaking with me honestly and openly about the misconduct and mistreatment they had endured at the hands of Aveo. Residents also voiced their concerns over issues such as complex and confusing contracts, excessive exit fees and the practice of churning residents. With a growing older demographic, in particular those who are not home owners, low-income households and older residents with high-care needs, housing stock is not keeping up with demand. The current retirement village industry and regulations are not flexible enough to meet the changing needs of our ageing population, who are often moving into these places with the expectation of their social and physical needs being met. Sadly, that is often not the case. It is imperative to have a national approach to regulate the retirement village industry, especially with respect to contract agreements. It has long been the Labor Party's passion to stand up for the marginalised. Residents in retirement villages like Veronica Gardens deserve our attention and support. As older Australians, they have made great contributions to their society. They deserve to spend their golden years with security and dignity and in quality care. They should not be left stranded in situations like this, where predatory practices are constantly looming over their place of residence and their secure retirement. As consumers, their rights should be recognised and protected. I join my colleagues in calling on the government to immediately adopt a national approach, making nationally consistent retirement village legislation with stronger consumer protections a national priority. I was delighted on Thursday of last week to meet with the Minister for Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, to discuss how I can work with him to make sure that these priorities are achieved. I am calling on the government to review retirement living contracts, in particular to pursue four objectives: firstly, to support nationally consistent retirement village legislation in contracts, including body corporate and management service contracts; secondly, to ensure transparent easy-to-read contracts; thirdly, for there to be an industry code of conduct; and, fourthly, for there to be efficient, cost-efficient and effective dispute resolution processes, such as an ombudsman, so that people living in these residences can make complaints and receive the treatment they deserve. It's also important for the retirement living sector to have certainty and consistency in its regulatory environment, so that it can support the choices of older Australians while maintaining its own reputation as a decent and law-abiding industry working in the interests of their consumers and our citizens—older Australians. It's time to act.
Live Animal Exports | Constituency Statements | House debates
This June Australia once again faced reports of horrendous animal cruelty taking place at the Al Rai livestock market in Kuwait during the Festival of Sacrifice. It is alleged that Australian...
This June Australia once again faced reports of horrendous animal cruelty taking place at the Al Rai livestock market in Kuwait during the Festival of Sacrifice. It is alleged that Australian sheep found their way outside the approved Export Supply Chain Assurance System, ESCAS, and were slipped into the Kuwait marketplace, where they suffered in the heat before being sold off individually to face backyard slaughter. This represents a severe breach of the ESCAS regulatory framework, which has once again undermined public confidence in the system and allowed for Australian sheep to potentially be subjected to terrible treatment. This is not acceptable. Labor has written to the minister, Barnaby Joyce, expressing our concerns over these reports, requesting that the minister ensure this investigation is expedited and asking for assurance that if the exporters are found to be in breach of ESCAS they will be held to account. ESCAS is set up to make sure that an Australian animal does not endure abuse like this. Yet, once again, the horrendous animal cruelty we witness shows the urgent need to review the current ESCAS system and establish the office of the Inspector General for Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. Ahead of the 2016 federal election, Labor released a six-point strategy calling for a review of the ESCAS, including its sanctions, to ensure that it's working as effectively as it needs to be. More importantly, we called for an independent inspector general of animal welfare, who will have the authority and the responsibility for overseeing implementation of laws, investigating breaches and providing independent advice to the federal government on reforms where the need for them exists. If we do not release publicly available information on breaches, actions taken and sanctions imposed on the mistreatment and abuse of Australian animals overseas, we will have to continue to rely on charities such as Animals Australia to be the watchdog of this multibillion dollar industry and to bring animal abuse cases to our notice. Achieving a strong animal welfare system requires strong national leadership and a willingness to make our systems transparent and strong. Australia needs a strong ESCAS system that works and that enforces strong sanctions when that framework is breached. The coalition has failed to invest, reform and care about this system. I do not want another year to go by with another allegation of animal cruelty and ESCAS failure. I call on the government to join with Labor and to implement our proposals.
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, which protects the take-home pay of some of our lowest paid workers. There are over 11,000...
It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, which protects the take-home pay of some of our lowest paid workers. There are over 11,000 people in my community of Batman who work in the retail and hospitality industries. While the economic arguments for cutting penalty rates remain nonexistent, the case for their retention is clear. Penalty rates are essential for low-paid workers in Australia to keep the lights on and to keep food on the table. Penalty rates also recognise the sacrifice weekend workers make by giving up time with their families. Today, however, I would like to speak on an aspect of this debate that I think deserves greater attention—the disproportionate impact that penalty rate cuts will have on women and what that means for gender equality in Australia. Acknowledging the gender aspect of this issue is important because it not only demonstrates the cruelty of these cuts but is also symptomatic of this government wilfully ignoring gender equality in its policy-making process. Experts have warned that the Turnbull government's decision to allow penalty rate cuts to proceed will have a disproportionate and negative impact on women in our society. Marian Baird from the University of Sydney states that 54 per cent of employees in the hospitality and retail sectors—the sectors most affected by these cuts to penalty rates—are women. She notes that, for many women, working on weekends is their only option because conventional career work on weekdays is too inflexible for them and there is no child care. When we talk about the gender pay gap, we must recognise this refers not only to the difference in pay between men and women in the same positions but also to the fact that industries with disproportionately large female workforces are often the lowest paid. When you attack the lowest-paid workers in this country, you are disproportionately attacking women, and, in particular, young women. For example, Marie Coleman from the National Foundation for Australian Women notes that penalty rate cuts are a 'fair smash at younger women and female-headed families'. A policy that disproportionately and negatively impacts young women and female-headed households is, by its nature, contributing to gender inequality in Australia. For the Turnbull government to gleefully ignore this fact is shameful. Marie Coleman has also raised an important point about the broader policy setting in which these cuts to penalty rates are taking place. These cuts are coming at a time when the Turnbull government's broader budget policy package is introducing measures that, when combined, hit women very hard indeed. A recent analysis by the National Foundation for Australian Women found that changes to the Medicare levy, the student loans repayments and the family tax benefit contained in the budget could lead to an effective marginal tax rate of 100 per cent, or even more for some women. Effective marginal tax rates measure the proportion of additional dollar earnings that are lost to both income tax and the reduction of means-tested government payments. Lower-paid graduates with a family will be the ones caught between these Turnbull government policies, to their severe detriment. Under these combined policies, a graduate earning $51,000—the majority of whom are likely to be women—will have less disposable income than someone on $32,000. So much for encouraging women to join our workforce! When my colleague the member for Jagajaga asked the Prime Minister about this unfair policy setting, the Prime Minister not only sought to undermine the study, despite obviously having never read it, but proceeded to say that his policies were fair and equitable and that he was getting the balance right. This statement by the Prime Minister goes to the very heart of this issue. Just as the Prime Minister chose to brush aside the member for Jagajaga's question, this government has chosen to brush aside deeper issues of gender inequality in Australian society. When policy development occurs in a vacuum with little reference to the lives of real Australians, the cumulative impact can be disastrous. If we are serious about addressing gender inequality in Australia, policy development—in particular, those policies relating to the welfare of the workforce—needs to also be considered through a gender lens. Labor has for many years undertaken to prepare a women's budget statement to look specifically at the impact of the budget on women. The coalition has refused to follow Labor's lead. The bill before the House right now offers those opposite and crossbenchers an opportunity to protect our lowest-paid workers and to demonstrate our shared commitment to gender equality. I urge every member of this House to take this opportunity.
Workplace Relations | Statements by Members | House debates
On 1 July, millionaires across Australia will get a $16,400 tax cut, while some 700,000 Australian workers will get their Sunday and public holiday pay rates cut. In my electorate, 11,000 people...
On 1 July, millionaires across Australia will get a $16,400 tax cut, while some 700,000 Australian workers will get their Sunday and public holiday pay rates cut. In my electorate, 11,000 people work in the industries that will be affected by these cuts. Tell me how that is fair. I have been talking to people across my community about these cuts. Countless locals have signed our petitions 'Protect our penalty rates'. People in my community are worried, and for good reason. Our community are concerned, and they are taking real action because they know what these cuts mean for low-income earners in our community. Whether these cuts are phased in over two years or three years does not really matter; the damage will be done: Australian workers will be worse off. I call on the Liberal Party do the right thing by my constituents and, indeed, their own constituents by voting with Labor to protect the take-home pay of some of our lowest paid workers. Today they can decide to back workers instead of their millionaire mates, and they can do it by supporting Labor's legislation. This is a government that is presiding over a low wages growth economy, an economy with low growth across sectors, and its trickle-down model is not working. The country is becoming more unfair, the difference in the distribution of wealth is sharpening and Australians are worse off. It is time for this government to demonstrate some real compassion and support Labor's legislation to restore wage justice.